USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS news

[LowObservable]

By Hallion's standard, the F-22/35 are "seventh generation", so the citation is irrelevant and misleading.

I've searched RAND a few times and I have not come up with anything earlier than Lambeth's papers that reference MiG 1.42. I've looked again at JAST-related stuff as late as 2000 and can't find the "5Gen" term. So some citations would actually be helpful.

 

[marauder2048]

By Hallion's standard, the F-22/35 are "seventh generation", so the citation is irrelevant and misleading.

I've searched RAND a few times and I have not come up with anything earlier than Lambeth's papers that reference MiG 1.42. I've looked again at JAST-related stuff as late as 2000 and can't find the "5Gen" term. So some citations would actually be helpful.

Bill Sweetman is the self-proclaimed unofficial JSF historian. Go ask him about this RAND/USAF study since it's also probably the origin of the 6:1 exchange ratio.

 

[LowObservable]

By the way, this has previously been hashed out here:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,21753.msg216948.html#msg216948

But having run through the thread, I don't see any clear citations to F-22/F-35 being "fifth-gen" before 2000.

 

[LowObservable]

Compare and contrast:

And FFS, the RAND/USAF "Next-Generation" fighter studies of the mid-90's that helped inform JAST/JSF use "fourth-generation" and "fifth-generation."

Ask for citations, and I get:

Bill Sweetman is the self-proclaimed unofficial JSF historian. Go ask him about this RAND/USAF study since it's also probably the origin of the 6:1 exchange ratio.

So basically, Marauder, you don't have any references to all those mid-90s studies?

As for the 6:1, it's much later than that. Hellz, if you'd gone around in the mid-1990s arguing that JSF would have that kind of margin in A2A, the USAF would have thrown you into the Papoose Lake bunker with the aliens.

 

[sferrin]

By Hallion's standard, the F-22/35 are "seventh generation", so the citation is irrelevant and misleading.

It is useful for pointing out that the concept of "generations" has been around for ages and did not originate in either Russia or LM's marketing department. As for other sources, books in the late 80s early 90s would probably be likely candidates but they're not exactly Google searchable. Thought I saw it in Drendel's F-14 In Action book but a look at that led nowhere. I am stumped as to why it is so important that it (the concept of generations) be discredited. Perhaps you could shed some insight there?

 

[sublight_]

This is all ridiculously superfluous. A generation is defined as being the next iteration of a design technology. By that metric, the F22 is a 30th generation fighter and the F35 is a 50th or more generation fighter. Right?

We've entered the age of complexity whereby you cant even consider the whole platform to be of some coherent design iteration. How many iterations have the engines, avionics, aerodynamics, stealth skin, and sensors gone through on an F35? Maybe its an 800th generation fighter now?

Kill this tangent and move on.

 

[marauder2048]

Compare and contrast:

And FFS, the RAND/USAF "Next-Generation" fighter studies of the mid-90's that helped inform JAST/JSF use "fourth-generation" and "fifth-generation."

Ask for citations, and I get:

Bill Sweetman is the self-proclaimed unofficial JSF historian. Go ask him about this RAND/USAF study since it's also probably the origin of the 6:1 exchange ratio.

So basically, Marauder, you don't have any references to all those mid-90s studies?

As for the 6:1, it's much later than that. Hellz, if you'd gone around in the mid-1990s arguing that JSF would have that kind of margin in A2A, the USAF would have thrown you into the Papoose Lake bunker with the aliens.

By the way, this has previously been hashed out here:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,21753.msg216948.html#msg216948

But having run through the thread, I don't see any clear citations to F-22/F-35 being "fifth-gen" before 2000.

Jeez. Have some Pamprin with your coffee. The study is "The Next Generation Attack Fighter: Affordability and Mission Needs." (96-97)

Here's a direct quotation from page 50: "We use F-22 as an example of a fifth-generation fighter."

 

[LowObservable]

It would have been easier to post the citation the first time.

As to the importance of the discussion: The words we use can influence the way we think.

 

[sublight_]

As to the importance of the discussion: The words we use can influence the way we think.

Then it would behoove you to come up with a moniker that uses a reasonable metric for describing the relative differences between the platforms. "Generation" has become entirely meaningless.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Fighter generations are a meaningless generalization which gets you nowhere useful, and depend on arbitrary criteria.

They are at best specific to a country or even an manufacturer. Did Boeing make a 5th generation fighter? No (aside from a failed prototype). Does that mean their FA-XX design is 5th generation? 6th generation? Who makes the membership rules? 6th Generation fighters must use their trademarked Black Diamond manufacturing process. Great, now only Boeing can make 6th gen fighters.

 

[bobbymike]

Fighter generations are a meaningless generalization which gets you nowhere useful, and depend on arbitrary criteria.

They are at best specific to a country or even an manufacturer. Did Boeing make a 5th generation fighter? No (aside from a failed prototype). Does that mean their FA-XX design is 5th generation? 6th generation? Who makes the membership rules? 6th Generation fighters must use their trademarked Black Diamond manufacturing process. Great, now only Boeing can make 6th gen fighters.

And to add to that I recall reading 5th Gen meant certain traits like all aspect stealth etc. So if someone build a "regular" fighter in 2050 would it still be 4th Gen?

 

[marauder2048]

Fighter generations are a meaningless generalization which gets you nowhere useful, and depend on arbitrary criteria.

They are at best specific to a country or even an manufacturer. Did Boeing make a 5th generation fighter? No (aside from a failed prototype). Does that mean their FA-XX design is 5th generation? 6th generation? Who makes the membership rules? 6th Generation fighters must use their trademarked Black Diamond manufacturing process. Great, now only Boeing can make 6th gen fighters.

All taxonomies depend (at least in part) on arbitrary criteria. The main point is that rival companies and countries do tend to get locked into a "next-generation" cadence (with upgrades or new development programs).

So a taxonomy built around generational characteristics is very useful in reasoning about where we are and where we are going.

 

[Steve Pace]

There's only one generation that's important - ours! "My Generation" by Who says it best. -SP

 

[Avimimus]

This is all ridiculously superfluous. A generation is defined as being the next iteration of a design technology. By that metric, the F22 is a 30th generation fighter and the F35 is a 50th or more generation fighter. Right?

We've entered the age of complexity whereby you cant even consider the whole platform to be of some coherent design iteration. How many iterations have the engines, avionics, aerodynamics, stealth skin, and sensors gone through on an F35? Maybe its an 800th generation fighter now?

Kill this tangent and move on.

Right - but if you were to consider the whole platform to be a generation you'd want a reliable ruler. Because the Russians develop a new generation of avionics and weapons alongside each new wave of airframes it makes more sense to use the Russian designs as the measurement. Of course, that is only if we are being pragmatic. So the F-X and F/A-XX should be 8th generation aircraft.

 

[marauder2048]

Because the Russians develop a new generation of avionics and weapons alongside each new wave of airframes it makes more sense to use the Russian designs as the measurement.

I felt we were truly "through the looking glass" when the current Deputy Sec. of Defense was outlining the building blocks of America's 21st century "reconnaissance strike complex" which
if you'll recall is an English translation of a Russian term that was coined by Soviet military analysts to describe the Assault-Breaker/Air-Land Battle/Follow-On Forces etc. efforts of the 80's.

 

[mz]

Google books search is quite nice, but don't know offhand how you can limit it to years explicitly.

I typed "fifth generation 1997" and got this, albeit it's talking about Soviet fighters. EDIT: actually searching just for fifth generation fighter and limiting to the twentieth century, there aren't that much mentions. You mostly get the same text. It considers F-22, Su-35, Rafale and Eurofighter as fifth gen as well, see the other attachment.

Someone can do more thorough research...

 

[Rhinocrates]

Out from behind the paywall now. That was quick.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-defining-next-fighter?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20160226_AW-05_637&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000001477848&utm_campaign=5093&utm_medium=email&elq2=b259dd7814dc419db5d60c84a1ac534f

 

[sferrin]

Yeah, I'm beginning to wonder what the point of having a subscription to AW&ST is. (Especially since now each article has a comments section. Joy.)

 

[DrRansom]

New article about 6th Gen Fighter: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2016/March/Pages/MilitaryEyesSixthGenerationFighter.aspx

Highlights

Sterling Anderson, deputy chief of Air Combat Command’s air superiority core function team, told National Defense that the Air Force already has a few capabilities in mind.

The service wants to cut down on the amount of mid-air refueling, he said. Fighters, which are traditionally small and compact, often have less space for extra fuel, he noted.

“We think it’s going to have to be long range, for sure,” he said. “If you look at almost any part of the world, even in the Middle East, and look at some of the distances required and the tankers required, we would like to have a fighter with a longer range probably than the standard 500 miles that we have today.”

Chris Hernandez, vice president of research, technology and advanced design at Northrop Grumman, said the company is making investments today to better address the challenges of the emerging operational environment.

“The integrated systems that the nation needs to acquire to assure air dominance in 2030 … [and beyond] will likely be very different than legacy fighter solutions,” he said in a statement.

“The emerging operational environment demands long-range, survivable, penetrating, persistent systems with deep magazines to prevail against a numerically superior adversary.”

In concept art, a laser weapon is visible on Northrop’s aircraft.

 

[jeffb]

You have to wonder, given the desire for long range and the improvements that have been made with laser systems, whether they might wind up looking at something the size of the new B-21 LRS-B, only set up to operate at very high altitude to improve the effectiveness of the lasers and radar range.

 

[sferrin]

You have to wonder, given the desire for long range and the improvements that have been made with laser systems, whether they might wind up looking at something the size of the new B-21 LRS-B, only set up to operate at very high altitude to improve the effectiveness of the lasers and radar range.

IMO laser power isn't to the point of justifying building the aircraft around it. Yet.

 

[NeilChapman]

AF testifies they are down to 120 combat coded F-22's.

@ ~ 59:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hx1wf4eKOc&ebc=ANyPxKrTFispynwjgSwJ9IX9tuHSx79bhw0-xUClC7SAemsLEF_izsWxZeCzwOKBrtpq2j8iHu3cD86C-0wmCymGm30iOWGp6w

 

[jsport]

New article about 6th Gen Fighter: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2016/March/Pages/MilitaryEyesSixthGenerationFighter.aspx

Highlights

Sterling Anderson, deputy chief of Air Combat Command’s air superiority core function team, told National Defense that the Air Force already has a few capabilities in mind.

The service wants to cut down on the amount of mid-air refueling, he said. Fighters, which are traditionally small and compact, often have less space for extra fuel, he noted.

“We think it’s going to have to be long range, for sure,” he said. “If you look at almost any part of the world, even in the Middle East, and look at some of the distances required and the tankers required, we would like to have a fighter with a longer range probably than the standard 500 miles that we have today.”

Chris Hernandez, vice president of research, technology and advanced design at Northrop Grumman, said the company is making investments today to better address the challenges of the emerging operational environment.

“The integrated systems that the nation needs to acquire to assure air dominance in 2030 … [and beyond] will likely be very different than legacy fighter solutions,” he said in a statement.

“The emerging operational environment demands long-range, survivable, penetrating, persistent systems with deep magazines to prevail against a numerically superior adversary.”

In concept art, a laser weapon is visible on Northrop’s aircraft.

Thank you for posting Dr Ransom. Glade to see the title of 'fighter' is in question by some. Maneuver and speed are still key but...

 

[sferrin]

Thank you for posting Dr Ransom. Glade to see the title of 'fighter' is in question by some. Maneuver and speed are still key but...

Could be something more like Interceptor/Strike or something. Think F-12B that could swap out AIM-47s for SRAMs or GBU-31s.

 

[jsport]

Thank you for posting Dr Ransom. Glade to see the title of 'fighter' is in question by some. Maneuver and speed are still key but...

Could be something more like Interceptor/Strike or something. Think F-12B that could swap out AIM-47s for SRAMs or GBU-31s.

Scary but possibly necessary to carry something as large as SRAMs as well volume associated w/ a decent DEW. Requirements creep again.

 

[NeilChapman]

I'm starting to think that F/A-XX should start as a squadron of technology demonstrators. Same build concept as B-21. Moderately new design, COTS gear.

LRIP at 6 per year for 1st few years. Continued LRIP until everything working and tested. Five years? Once everything is working, start increasing block quantities. This way you only have to retrofit maybe 30 aircraft or maybe they just become test articles and new planes go to the field.

We've spent ~6 billion on lasers and still nothing transformative. Let's not tie F/A-XX to lasers. Plan for it with follow-on upgrades as you get some techmat.

We'll have the B-21 which will likely be characterized by B2 roots...

Speed High Subsonic 600mph
Maneuverability Straight and Level
Payload Large 30-40klbs
Range Long 4350nm

So perhaps F/A-XX should compliment w/the following

Speed Supersonic w/supercruise
Maneuverability Highly Maneuverable
Payload Large Max TO weight 80k lbs
Range Long 2600nm

Basically use the B-21/F35 subs to create the F/A-XX. F135 engines should be ~$10 million pretty soon.

Perhaps you even allow export with a different Electronic Warfare System.

Heck - we've got the YF-23 drawings on the forum.

 

[DrRansom]

Looks like the USAF wants to accelerate 6th Gen and isn't looking at F-22 restart.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-wants-on-time-f-x-not-more-f-22s-422950/

Major Take-away:

Holmes says pressing forward with the air force’s Next-Generation Air Dominance programme is the better way to make up for lower-than-planned fifth-generation fighter capacity, but cannot be a technologically exotic fighter jet that takes two or three decades to develop.

“They cost too much, they take too long, they make you drive for technology that’s so far into the future that it’s really hard to achieve and by the time you spend 30 years achieving it, it may not be exactly what you want,” he explains after the hearing. “We’re trying to move to a world where we go forward with new airplanes that take advantage of technology that’s ready to manufacture and we have the manufacturing skills to do it, and what could we produce in five years or 10 years instead of 30 years?

Looks like USAF wants to solve the problem of aircraft development cycles by (gasp) choosing a more incremental solution.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2016/03/09/congress-seems-willing-give-af-more-f-35sand-f-22s/81528980/

 

[Avimimus]

Given the 'long range' and 'magazine depth' being mooted... such an aircraft might not be conventionally manoeuvrable. If HOBS missiles and DEWs become more common WVR manoeuvring might be less important - supersonic manoeuvrability might still be important on the other hand.

So, what attributes do you need for sustained supersonic manoeuvrability?

 

[Dragon029]

High G capabilities, reduced supersonic drag, sufficiently large control surfaces / thrust vectoring.

 

[Rhinocrates]

There has been interest in restarting F-22 production, apparently, but the USAF is against it. Instead, they want a new platform, fast, which may lead to it being based in part on an existing platform or technologies, as in the Lockheed-KAI T-50-based T-X proposal.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-wants-on-time-f-x-not-more-f-22s-422950/

Quothe Lt Gen James Holmes, “I think it’s completely possible as we get the requirements that there may be competitors that bid on modification of an existing technology or platform like the F-22 and the F-35... It’s purely speculation on my part, but if I was going to ask a company to bid on what they could build for me in five years or 10 years, I’d expect that some of them would take advantage of work they’ve already done and base it on something they already have.”

One thing that occurred to me is that with the increasingly stated preference for proven technologies, we might see more X-planes flying.

Of course I'd love to see super high-tech, clean sheet, exotic F-X.

 

[sferrin]

Looks like USAF wants to solve the problem of aircraft development cycles by (gasp) choosing a more incremental solution.

You sound like you actually believe the USAF feels they need to go bleeding edge on everything at all times.

 

[dark sidius]

It is likely possible that the 6 th gne fighter will be a modified F-22 with new availeble technology in propulsion and stealth, when we look at the 6 th gen fighter drawing it look a lot like a F-23.

 

[DrRansom]

You sound like you actually believe the USAF feels they need to go bleeding edge on everything at all times.

It seemed to be Pentagon modernization theory for the 2000s, but that has changed quite a lot in the last five years.

About the F-22, the argument against the F-22 is that it is just too short ranged and too limited in armament. If you look at the article I posted, the USAF is thinking of a minimum 500 nm combat radius. A modernized (5+ gen) F-22 would need to get much more fuel and a bigger bomb bay to accommodate more and different weapons.

What is interesting for Congressional point of view is that AEI wrote in October - November timeframe that the USAF should resume buying F-22s and accelerate the KC-767 purchase. I wonder if that has gained traction in Congress. If so, the USAF has to sell Congress on a changed requirement for a 6th gen fighter. That will be tricky because the statements about 6th gen fighters have been far too vague.

 

[sferrin]

You sound like you actually believe the USAF feels they need to go bleeding edge on everything at all times.

It seemed to be Pentagon modernization theory for the 2000s, but that has changed quite a lot in the last five years.

I think it was more that it was forced on them by circumstance. Back in the 50s & 60s the build rate was such that incremental improvements were the norm. As time went on though, the span between generations increase, the numbers bought decreased, and the opportunity to incorporate new technology was reduced. That meant each time you had the opportunity you had to add more items than you might have in the past. On top of that more new items came on board. The difference between the F-8 Crusader and F-4 Phantom was the latter got a better radar, SA BVR missiles, a bit better engines and avionics, and that was it. Build construction was largely similar. The F-15 was pretty much the same. Better engines, a bit more composite (a lot more titanium), improved radar. Then the F-22 came and stealth imposed a complete rethink on construction, radars, ESM, etc. Supercruise added demands on aerodynamics and engines. Had stealth not been a requirement the differences might have been more incremental in nature. Same with the F-35 and the aircraft it's replacing only more so.

 

[DrRansom]

I think it was more that it was forced on them by circumstance. Back in the 50s & 60s the build rate was such that incremental improvements were the norm. As time went on though, the span between generations increase, the numbers bought decreased, and the opportunity to incorporate new technology was reduced. That meant each time you had the opportunity you had to add more items than you might have in the past. On top of that more new items came on board. The difference between the F-8 Crusader and F-4 Phantom was the latter got a better radar, SA BVR missiles, a bit better engines and avionics, and that was it. Build construction was largely similar. The F-15 was pretty much the same. Better engines, a bit more composite (a lot more titanium), improved radar. Then the F-22 came and stealth imposed a complete rethink on construction, radars, ESM, etc. Supercruise added demands on aerodynamics and engines. Had stealth not been a requirement the differences might have been more incremental in nature. Same with the F-35 and the aircraft it's replacing only more so.

Good point on the F-22 and F-35 representing a sharp break with the continuity of aircraft design. Stealth fighters probably upended all the design tools and methods.

I've wondered if the USAF / USN should have gone to a 5+ gen fighter to incorporate lessons learned from F-22 / F-35. It appears that the USAF will do that. Maybe the results of the ESAV research was promising enough to allow for a quick aircraft? Or, have the design tools for stealth aircraft matured to the point where the challenge of a stealth fighter is understood well enough to allow rapid development?

 

[marauder2048]

Lt Gen James Holmes, “I think it’s completely possible as we get the requirements that there may be competitors that bid on modification of an existing technology or platform like the F-22 and the F-35... It’s purely speculation on my part, but if I was going to ask a company to bid on what they could build for me in five years or 10 years, I’d expect that some of them would take advantage of work they’ve already done and base it on something they already have.”

Not sure how you structure a competition on modifications to existing platforms that doesn't end up hugely advantaging the incumbent OEMs. Boeing/GE/Raytheon might not even elect to bid.

 

[bobbymike]

Someone Besides USAF Finally Said It

—John A. Tirpak

3/11/2016

​Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work thinks the Air Force is being driven into a “bad place” by excessive cuts, but he’s not sure what to do about it. Speaking at an AFA Mitchell Institute event Wednesday night, Work said, “Without question, the part of the joint portfolio which has taken the brunt of the defense drawdown is the US Air Force and our capacity in aerospace combat power.” He continued, “We have told ourselves that the reason why this is okay is because of the [capability] of fifth-gen aircraft, primarily our F-22s” and F-35s, which he re-dubbed the “Battle Network … BN-22 and BN-35,” to recognize that they are “unbelievable sensor platforms, both of which have a battlefield utility far beyond” simply being fighters. But the F-22 buy was “truncated” and the F-35 buy has slipped from a planned 80 to 60 to 48 per year. “If you ask me, if I had an extra, say $30 billion, would I put it all on F-35 or would I try to amp up some of our fourth-gen stuff? And I’m not certain how I’d answer that question.” Work said if USAF were to drop from today’s 54 fighter squadrons down to 45, but “they’d all be F-35s. I’m not certain I would say that’s a good thing, simply because the Air Force optempo is driving the force into a bad place. So I ​don’t know, I’d really have to look at that.” He said he thinks USAF will have to “live with” a force of mixed fifth- and fourth-gen fighters “until 2040, possibly beyond. And, so, I really worry about the size of the Air Force.”

 

[Airplane]

If I had an extra $30B for the USAF, I would put it all into bringing back the F-22 and let the F-35 procurement continue as now planned.

 

[jsport]

Lt Gen James Holmes, “I think it’s completely possible as we get the requirements that there may be competitors that bid on modification of an existing technology or platform like the F-22 and the F-35... It’s purely speculation on my part, but if I was going to ask a company to bid on what they could build for me in five years or 10 years, I’d expect that some of them would take advantage of work they’ve already done and base it on something they already have.”

Not sure how you structure a competition on modifications to existing platforms that doesn't end up hugely advantaging the incumbent OEMs. Boeing/GE/Raytheon might not even elect to bid.

would have to agree. Incrementals are unlikely to meet the bill. Requirements need to be realistic for the Air Dominance . Stealth fighters doesn't equate to dominance of all air force projection capability.